Public Bill Committee

[Ann Winterton in the Chair]

Ann Winterton: I wish the Committee good morning, in spite of the fact that it is not a very good one. Before we proceed, may I make it clear that it is in order for hon. Gentlemen to remove their jackets, although I see that someone in the Committee has rather taken that for granted? I will be grateful if, in future, hon. Members would realise that permission should be given.
First, I remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments. However, you will have noticed that because of a printing error, some amendments that were tabled in time for selection appear as starred. Secondly, hon. Members are notified that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Bill, copies of which are available in the room.

Tom Harris: I beg to move,
That if proceedings on the Crossrail Bill are not completed at this day’s sitting, the Committee do meet—
(a) on Thursdays when the House is sitting at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., and
(b) on Tuesdays when the House is sitting at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.
I welcome you to the Chair, Lady Winterton. I am sure that it will be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the length of this Committee. Although I have served on many Public Bill Committees, this is the first that I have led on behalf of the Government. In that respect, I am something of a Public Bill Committee virgin. I trust that you will be gentle with me in the sittings ahead.
I also welcome all hon. Members to the Committee. I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Northampton, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South who were members of the Crossrail Select Committee and whose agreement to serve on this Committee says a great deal about their personal courage and their devotion to this subject. If in future we see them on “Celebrity Mastermind”, I suspect that we know what their specialist subject will be.
The motion will allow the Committee to meet at 10.30 am and 4 pm on Tuesdays and 9 am and 1 pm on Thursdays. The order of consideration will allow for the consideration of schedules immediately after the consideration of the relevant clauses. For example, schedule 1 will be considered immediately after clause 1. I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to see the Bill unnecessarily delayed. Bearing in mind that it has already been the subject of 21 months of Select Committee scrutiny, to which some hon. Members present can attest, I confirm that the Government are happy to offer however much time is required for consideration by this Committee.
Copies of my recent letters relating to the Bill and in some cases to the project itself are available from the table in the centre of the room.

Stephen Hammond: Following the Minister, I wish to welcome you to the Chair, Lady Winterton. We look forward very much to serving under your chairmanship. I echo the welcome to all members of the Committee given by the Minister and suspect that all hon. Members present want to see the Bill passed speedily through its Committee stage. None the less, there is some scrutiny to do and Conservative Members look forward to taking part in the debates in whatever number of sittings is required. We support the sittings motion and look forward to getting on to the business of the day.

Susan Kramer: I echo the sentiments that have been expressed by other hon. Members, but do not want to take up the Committee’s time. I also echo the thanks to the Select Committee, which has done a great deal of work on the Bill. What is left to do is relatively limited, thank goodness.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That proceedings on the Bill be taken in the following order, namely, Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clause 2; Schedule 2; Clause 3; Schedule 3; Clause 4; Schedule 4; Clause 5; Schedule 5; Clause 6; Schedule 6; Clauses 7 to 10; Schedule 7; Clauses 11 to 15; Schedule 8; Clause 16; Schedule 9; Clause 17; Schedule 10; Clauses 18 to 45; Schedule 11; Clause 46; Schedule 12; Clauses 47 and 48; Schedule 13; Clause 49; Schedule 14; Clauses 50 to 57; Schedule 15; Clause 58; Schedule 16; Clauses 59 to 66; new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.—[Mr. Harris.]

Clause 1

Construction and maintenance of scheduled works

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert ‘not exceeding three metres’.
The clause is the first of four dealing with the works, works permissions and works authorisations necessary to build Crossrail. The Bill vests those permissions and powers in the nominated undertaker. The amendment deals with clause 1(4), which states:
“In constructing or maintaining any of the scheduled works, the nominated undertaker may deviate vertically from the level shown for that work on the deposited sections to any extent downwards.”
Our amendment would add the words “not exceeding 3 metres”.
We are concerned that the subsection, as so worded, may not confront some of the realities of construction. Might there not be sections of the route in which to allow any deviation downwards would mean that the scheduled works would hit, touch or interfere with all sorts of other infrastructures? Why is there any need for unlimited downward deviation and to what purpose? The limits of deviation are set in other paragraphs in the Bill. Consistently during the sittings of the Committee, I will wish to test why the Government seek to take powers outside either the scheduled route or the limits of deviation.
I point out that subsection (3) gives the nominated undertaker the power to deviate laterally
“to any extent within the limits of deviation for that work”.
So why not deviate vertically downwards to the limits of deviation for that work? Might it not be sensible to so limit that downward vertical deviation as well? I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance as to why the Government wish to take those powers.

Tom Harris: The limits of deviation are well precedented in earlier private Acts for railways. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 was the last hybrid Bill for a railway project; mention of that Bill will recur many times during our debates and in the Department’s model clauses for orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992. They reflect the fact that the design of Crossrail is only at an outline stage; the detailed design will come later. Therefore, flexibility is essential. The nominated undertaker will, in any event, be bound by the environmental minimum requirements, which are a set of arrangements that will regulate Crossrail construction.
The general limit of deviation of 3 m upwards, or 6 m in specific instances, is there to protect people with surface interests who need the comfort that noise and movement will not affect their properties. Downward deviation, for obvious reasons, would tend to make such concerns diminish and, therefore, there is no need to put a downward limit on deviation in the way that the amendment would do. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I am interested in what the Minister says, but would he would clarify one more point? He ended by saying that downward deviation would not incur the same noise problems that upward deviation from the scheduled route might. For example, if the scheduled route were 3 m from the surface, a downward deviation beyond the limits—which the clause particularly addresses—might well incur noise issues. Will he reassure the Committee that, without putting a limit to vertical downward deviation, there will not be potential noise problems for the public?

Tom Harris: I am happy to clarify the matter as best I can. Clearly, in a project of this size, our priority must be to protect the interests and the environment of people who live or work at the surface of the Crossrail route. Downward deviation from the existing plans will have far less a detrimental effect on the environment than would upward deviation. As I have already said, that is well precedented; the factor was specifically written into the 1996 Act simply because of that concern. I fail to see how a downward deviation of greater than 3 m could have any greater detrimental effect or could not have a more beneficial environmental effect on people living and working on the surface at the point of Crossrail construction.

Brian Binley: The concern arises from the fact, which was drummed into us on many occasions during the Select Committee’s consideration of this hybrid Bill, that noise and vibration are not necessarily dependent upon depth, but on the structure, the geology and other matters of that kind. A deeper level of boring can occasionally cause more problems for people living above it than a higher level. The issue is not that simple and I understand why there could be confusion. It took me a long time to get my head around it, and we had two years at it. With that in mind and because Crossrail travels through London, many people were concerned about vibration, noise and the impact on their daily lives. This was an important issue. Consequently, I would hate to think that we were going to open up that issue again. Will the Minister consider that point?

Tom Harris: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. As I said in my opening remarks, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South have almost literally an in-depth knowledge of the Crossrail project. He is right to suggest that depth alone will not necessarily alleviate the effects on the surface of vibration or noise. However, neither will deviation downwards have a detrimental effect on the environment at the surface. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there are other things to consider such as the geology of the area. However, I fail to see how a downward deviation of greater than 3 m would have a detrimental effect on the environment.
We are at a very early stage and the work has not yet started. It is simply a standard procedure in a Bill of this kind to allow some flexibility. That is all we are asking for. There is no intention on the part of the engineers or the Crossrail team deliberately to need that extra deviation. However, in a project of this scale, possibly a year or two before work begins, that discretion is needed in the Bill. As I have said, it has always been a part of these hybrid Bills and I expect it will be a part of all hybrid Bills in future. On that note, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I accept that this an exceptional Bill and will require some exceptional conditions to be placed in it. I accept that there is a need for flexibility. What is a well established principle, as the Minister has said, is that there is a deposited route and a deposited schedule of works. There is also a deviation that allows flexibility and there is a limit to that deviation. The amendment would introduce some restriction on works outside that limit of deviation. Although I am happy to accept the Minister’s reassurance, we will test this point a number of times in Committee because there are bounds to flexibility. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but this clause is important. It authorises the nominated undertaker, who may or may not be the Secretary of State, or a nominated undertaker nominated by the Secretary of State, to construct and maintain the works necessary for Crossrail. Those works are specified in the Bill as the scheduled works and some of the clause’s subsections, as we have just discussed, show that there is no limit to the specification of deviation. I return to the remark that I have just made and to a trend that is reflected throughout the Bill. In a number of clauses, powers are granted to deviate from the line of build without limit, and that principle starts in this clause. We will want to test that principle several times throughout the Committee’s proceedings.
We entirely accept that this is an exceptional project, for which flexibility will certainly be required. However, those powers and such flexibility must be reasonable in both effect and extent. We are concerned that in several cases that is not so. I am happy that the Minister has been able to reassure the Committee on the clause, but I am doubtful that he will be able to do so for all the clauses as we proceed.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Crossrail is an exceptional project. However, it is not an unprecedented project and I will refer many times during these debates to exactly the same provisions that were in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. Clause 1 authorises the construction and maintenance by the nominated undertaker of the Crossrail works specified in schedule 1. It is a standard clause, similar to those found in all works Bills.
The clause also sets out the permitted limits of deviation from the siting of works as shown on the relevant plans. Those limits are well precedented in earlier private Acts for railways and reflect the fact that the design of Crossrail is of necessity at outline stage only. Detailed design will come later, and therefore some flexibility is essential. That said, the nominated undertaker will be bound by the environmental minimum requirements, a set of parameters that will control most of the construction of Crossrail.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Works: further and supplementary provisions

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in schedule 2, page 63, line 39, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 40.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in schedule 2, page 67, line 7, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 8.

Stephen Hammond: These amendments and their purposes are identical. Amendment No. 26 deals with disputes over highway access and amendment No. 27 deals with disputes over the discharge of water. Amendment No. 26 proposes that the relevant subsection should read:
“Any dispute with a highway authority under this paragraph shall, if the parties agree, be referred to arbitration”.
That would remove the ultimate power for dispute resolution from the hands of the Secretary of State. Disputes should be referred to arbitration, the process of which should be designed to ensure that a solution is reached. It seems that there is no need for a provision to be written into the Bill that will allow decisions to be made by the Government, rather than by someone charged with arbitration. There is a risk that the Government will not only be one of the parties in the arbitration, but the arbiter as well, which seems to be an inequitable position. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister accepting these sensible and reasonable amendments.

Mark Field: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Does the Minister not also understand that, in a sense, the Secretary of State’s power is imposed only when the parties disagree at the outset? The danger is that the Secretary of State will get involved in what could be a very difficult political debate between parties that disagree about arbitration. Given the amount of compulsory purchasing and the other elements in which either the Secretary of State is potentially a final arbiter or state bodies own part of the land concerned, it seems the worst of all worlds for the Secretary of State to take on that power. However, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, the parties should be obliged to go to arbitration whether or not they agree.

Tom Harris: As the hon. Member for Wimbledon knows, paragraph 1 of schedule 2 grants the nominated undertaker general powers to carry out ancillary works additional to the scheduled works. Paragraph 2 allows the nominated undertaker to provide highway accesses, whether permanent or temporary, at the points marked on the deposited plans, except when the highway authority objects on the specific grounds provided. Such access may be similarly provided with the consent of the highway authority—such consent not to be unreasonably withheld—at any other point within the Bill limits. Any disputes about the provision of highway accesses are to be determined by the Secretary of State unless the parties agree that the matter should be referred to arbitration.
Paragraph 8 allows the nominated undertaker to make use of sewers and watercourses for removing water in connection with the construction or maintenance of Crossrail. Any disputes about making use of sewers and watercourses are to be determined by the Secretary of State unless the parties agree that the matter should be referred to arbitration.
The amendments would remove the Secretary of State’s ability, as the hon. Gentleman said, to determine disputes about highway accesses or the discharge of water, meaning that they would in all cases go straight to arbitration. Giving the Secretary of State the ability to determine disputes about various matters is well precedented in projects of national significance such as Crossrail. The provisions are modelled on identical provisions in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, and the Bill contains many other provisions whereby the Secretary of State, sometimes acting jointly with another Secretary of State—for example, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—will be able to determine disputes.
Arbitration can be a rather time-consuming and costly experience, particularly when both sides do not feel that it is necessary, and the Bill’s approach is to allow for arbitration only when both sides agree. The amendments would ensure that arbitration occurred even when both parties did not want it. The provisions in the Bill worked well in legislation for the channel tunnel rail link, and Ministers are well used to exercising such functions. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened very carefully to the Minister, to his comments about precedent in other legislation and to the point that the amendments would refer people to arbitration even if they did not want it, which in some cases is extremely helpful. I hope that he has taken on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who made the point that, in relatively minor cases, the Secretary of State may be drawn into political disputes that he would not wish to be drawn into. Nevertheless, given the precedent in other legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Highways

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: There was no need to discuss clause 3 because it simply introduced schedule 3, but will the Minister confirm that the schedule deals entirely with the highways that need to be altered for Crossrail and that, given that they were determined by the Select Committee, there is no need for a debate in this Committee?

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman interprets the schedule exactly in the way that I would have done.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

Overhead lines

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

Stephen Hammond: The clause deals with the Electricity Act 1989, which established the regime under which the consents for overhead lines are granted, and disapplies that regime within the deviation limits on other land on which it is intended to build Crossrail. It establishes schedule 4, which details the new consents regime, and then makes provision for the expiry of the disapplication and the application of the consents regime in the 1989 Act.
There are a number of public safety and other concerns when dealing with electricity. The consents regime was put in place so that specialists would deal with the national electricity grid and its distribution. Will the Minister tell us why he feels, therefore, that it is necessary to disapply the normal consents regime in that highly specialised area? Why is that necessary given that many other construction projects are built complying with the 1989 Act consents regime? Why is Crossrail different? Why are these powers necessary? I look forward to him reassuring us that the powers are necessary.

Tom Harris: I am always happy to try to offer reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. However, I note that he has not tabled any amendments to clause 4.

Stephen Hammond: I did table an amendment, but it was not selected.

Tom Harris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that mistake.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause disapplies the provisions in section 37(1) of the 1989 Act in relation to overhead electric lines installed within the deviation limits, in exercise of powers conferred by the Bill or pursuant to any of the protective provisions in schedule 16. Furthermore, it introduces schedule 4, which makes alternative provision for consent of such lines, and enables the relevant Secretaries of State to grant deemed planning permission alongside that consent, with or without conditions. The construction of Crossrail will require a number of diversions of overhead electric lines, including the two specified in the table in paragraph 3 of schedule 2. Clause 4 and schedule 4 will provide a more tailored, detailed consent regime for the approval of works under the Bill. I had hoped that those provisions would be uncontroversial; they, too, are precedented in the 1996 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Temporary possession and use of land

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in schedule 5, page 98, line 25, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘56’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in schedule 5, page 100, line 26, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘56’.

Stephen Hammond: The amendments are identical. The schedule deals with the temporary possession and use of land. Whether the land is to be used for the construction of works, as with the lead amendment, or for the maintenance of works, as with amendment No. 29, the nominated undertaker is required to give only 28 days’ notice to the owners and occupiers of land of which he intends to take possession. That is not long if one has to make necessary arrangements and move off one’s land.
I seek to be fairer to those who are to be required to move off their land, and I think that 56 days, or two months, is a more suitable period. Given the length of advance planning that has gone into this project and the advance notice that will be given to people, giving 56 days’ notice should not cause the nominated undertaker any problems. I hope that the Committee will look favourably on the amendments.

Tom Harris: It is no surprise that we are having a debate about extending 28 days to 56, but I had expected it to be in a slightly different context.
The schedule allows the nominated undertaker temporarily to take possession and make use of land in connection with Crossrail works. It requires that 28 days’ notice be given by the nominated undertaker to the owners and occupiers of the land before possession is taken for constructing and maintaining the works. The amendments would double that notice period.
The 28-day notice period for the temporary possession of land is sufficient and well precedented in many private railway and hybrid Bills, as well as in the Department’s model clauses, which consider 14 days appropriate. Doubling the notice period would impose additional inflexibility on the nominated undertaker when it came to carrying out Crossrail construction and maintenance works efficiently.
Cross London Rail Links is already in touch with many of the relevant owners and occupiers, and, in many cases, has agreements in place for a longer notice period where the matter is of particular sensitivity and could reasonably be accommodated by the nominated undertaker. Agreeing such arrangements case by case is the appropriate solution when these matters arise. I therefore cannot support the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by my assurances and withdraw it.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the Minister for his reply and I am pleased to hear that the Department has doubled the period recommended in its model arrangements. I am also pleased that he thinks 28 days a suitable notice period; I am sure that he will think the same on other matters, otherwise the Government might lose some members, I suspect. Having listened to his assurances and his concern about the restriction on flexibility, and taking on board the fact that the Government have already moved some way on this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tom Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in schedule 5, page 101, line 27, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
‘6 Section 13 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56) (refusal to give possession to acquiring authority) applies for the purposes of this Schedule as if—
(a) references to the acquiring authority were references to the nominated undertaker,
(b) references to compensation payable to the person refusing to give possession were references to compensation payable under this Schedule, and
(c) in subsection (1) for “this Act” there were substituted “Schedule 5 to the Crossrail Act 2008”.’.
The amendment is purely technical and reflects a recent change to the law on the enforcement of compulsory purchase orders. The change means that High Court enforcement officers and the high sheriff of each county can enforce compulsory purchase orders in England and Wales. The amendment will apply that change to the enforcement of powers in the Bill to take temporary possession of land.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I seek some reassurance. Paragraph 6 of the schedule sets out the arrangements for enforcing the provision of any land, be it compulsorily purchased, required or taken temporarily, if the owner fails to give up or hinders the taking of possession. I can see why the Government might want to tighten sub-paragraph (3), and we would welcome that, but the amendment will mean that the paragraph applies only to land that is compulsorily purchased, as it enacts section 13 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. That does not seem to allow the flexibility that the Minister wanted in other clauses or to have the same wider power implied in paragraph 6(1), which states that if the nominated undertaker is authorised, they can
“enter on and take possession of any land”.
Indeed, the explanatory notes reinforce that position. They refer to the arrangements for the
“enforcement of any possession required”
of any land. Is the Minister satisfied that there will be no circumstances in which the power to enter and take land might not exist following agreement being given to Government amendment No. 1?

Tom Harris: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that his concerns are unfounded. The Government do not believe that that will be the effect of the amendment. To clarify, the 1965 Act does not provide for compensation for temporary possession. Schedule 5 will give an entitlement to compensation
“to the owners and occupiers of land...for any loss which they may suffer by reason of the exercise in relation to the land of the power or powers conferred by this paragraph”—
that is, paragraph 4. It follows the precedent set by previous railway Bills and the Transport and Works Act 1992 model clauses.
The amendment is about the office holders who will be able to enforce orders, and not the effect of those orders. It simply identifies who is responsible for an order. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman enough reassurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Tom Harris: I wish to make a few comments and clarifications on the schedule. It allows the nominated undertaker temporarily to take possession of and make use of land in connection with carrying out Crossrail works. The table in paragraph 1 shows the land in question and the purposes for which it may be used—for example, mitigation works, utility diversions, means of access, provision of working space, highway access or a work site.
The schedule requires 28 days’ notice to be given to the owners and occupiers of the land before possession is taken, and the possession is time-limited to one year after completion of the works, unless the owners agree otherwise. Compensation may be payable for such possession, with any disputes about such compensation to be determined under the Land Compensation Act 1961.
Paragraph 2 requires the nominated undertaker, before giving up possession of any land used under paragraph 1, to put the land in question back into such condition as may be agreed in a scheme between him, the owners of the land and the local planning authority, or as determined by the appropriate Ministers. The paragraph also sets out what such a scheme may and may not require.
Paragraph 3 allows the nominated undertaker to use any road situated on land specified in paragraph 8 of schedule 6 for the passage of persons or vehicles. Compensation may be payable for any loss suffered as a result of such use, with any disputes about such compensation to be determined under the 1961 Act.
Paragraph 4 allows the nominated undertaker, during the maintenance period of any work, which is defined as being up to five years from the date on which the work is brought into general use, to enter upon and take possession of land within the Bill limits and within 20 m of any scheduled work, if such possession is necessary for maintaining the work. The power granted by the paragraph does not apply to any house or garden, or land not subject to compulsory purchase under the Bill, and the nominated undertaker must give at least 28 days’ notice to the owners and occupiers of the land before possession is taken.
The nominated undertaker may remain in possession of such land only as long as is reasonably necessary, and must, before giving up possession, restore the land in question to the reasonable satisfaction of the owners of the land. Compensation may be payable for any loss suffered as a result of such use, with any disputes about such compensation to be determined under the 1961 Act.
Paragraph 5 allows for private rights of way to be temporarily suspended and provides that compensation may be payable to anyone who suffers loss as a result of any such extinguishment, with any disputes about such compensation to be determined under the 1961 Act.
Paragraph 6 sets out the arrangements for the enforcement of any possession required under the paragraph should the owner or occupier of the land in question refuse to give up possession of it or hinder the taking of possession. It makes similar provision to that applying to the taking of possession following notice of entry on a compulsory purchase.

Stephen Hammond: We are grateful for the Minister’s extensive explanation of the schedule. I noted halfway through that explanation the interesting and welcome comment that compensation will be paid, and will be determined by an independent body, not the Secretary of State. In other cases, the Secretary of State wanted to take those powers upon herself.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6

Acquisition of land within limits shown on deposited plans

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 6, page 3, line 19, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘nominated undertaker’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘nominated undertaker’.

Stephen Hammond: The Bill deals with the powers and authorisations necessary to build Crossrail. Those powers are vested in either the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker. The Secretary of State clearly has the power to nominate the nominated undertaker, so the power in the clause to acquire land is vested with the Secretary of State. What will happen if a nominated undertaker has already been nominated? Will that nominated undertaker also require the power to acquire land compulsorily?
By inserting “nominated undertaker”, the amendment would cover circumstances in which the nominated undertaker was not the Secretary of State, and if it was the Secretary of State, those circumstances would also be covered, because the Secretary of State and the nominated undertaker could be one and the same at any time.
This is a simple amendment, but on reflection perhaps I should have drafted it so that the power would be vested not in the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker, but in the Secretary of State and/or the nominated undertaker. None the less, I believe that it would fill a potential gap in the Bill, but if I am wrong I look forward to the Minister enlightening the Committee as to why the Secretary of State alone is sufficient, and not also the nominated undertaker.

Tom Harris: I am tempted, but not quite enough. The amendments are workable, but not desirable. Many of the powers are conferred on the nominated undertaker who will undertake particular works. However, in the Bill, as in the 1996 Act before it, we have deliberately chosen to vest the compulsory purchase powers in a public authority because of the special sensitivity of such powers, and to give added public confidence in the exercising of those powers. I shall explain how they will work.
The nominated undertaker will design his works, and as part of that will establish what land is required to undertake those works. He is unlikely to need all the land within limits specified in the Bill plans, so this is a selective process in determining what is required. Under the amendment to clause 6, he would proceed directly to serving notices to treat, which initiate the acquisition process. However, under clause 6, there is a further stage. The nominated undertaker’s land requirements will be submitted to the Secretary of State, or the Greater London authority and/or Transport for London if devolved to them. The public authority must then satisfy itself that the issue of notices to treat is appropriate. That is intended to provide additional public confidence in the process for acquiring land compulsorily.
The same public accountability issue arises in the amendment to clause 7. Generally, if the nominated undertaker finds that he needs land outside the Bill limits—for example, for mitigation works—he will seek to acquire that land by agreement. Only if that fails will the nominated undertaker need to seek compulsory acquisition. As in clause 6, clause 7 will require the nominated undertaker to submit his proposals to the Secretary of State, the GLA and/or TfL, which will then decide whether seeking a compulsory purchase order is appropriate.
For projects that do not involve a public authority, compulsory powers will be exercised directly by the body responsible for the works. There is nothing wrong with that, but for a hybrid Bill, since the Secretary of State is the promoter, there tends to be an expectation among those affected of her continuing accountability for the exercise of the compulsory purchase powers. For those reasons, I want to maintain the provisions of clauses 6(1) and 7(1). They are precedented and will help to maintain public confidence and accountability. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I have been listening carefully to the Minister, and I am pleased that he was tempted by our amendment—it is indeed tempting. His point about accountability is powerful. I was tempted to divide the Committee, but, having listened to him, I shall resist that temptation, although I give him notice that I might wish to test the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Acquisition of land shown within limits on deposited plans

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Peter Soulsby: I want to take the opportunity, as one of the survivors of incarceration in the Select Committee, to draw attention to the significant number of properties that are included in the schedule. I remind Members who did not have to suffer that incarceration that the Select Committee gave landowners and others affected, many of them by schedule 6, the opportunity to petition against the Bill and have their interests considered.
We received a large number of petitions and took careful consideration of the impact on the petitioners. In particular, we listened to the cases that they made to us on how compensation will be applied and how compulsory purchase will affect their interests. As a result of hearing those petitions, we were able to seek from the Government and the promoters of the Bill amendments to their proposals, which mitigated to some extent the situation of petitioners and landowners.
It is also worth my reminding the Committee that those whose land and interests are included in the schedule will have a further opportunity to petition, should they wish to do so, when the Bill goes through the Lords. We can be reassured that the interests of those affected were taken into account at the early stages and that those people will have a further opportunity to have them considered, if they wish.

Mark Field: I very much endorse what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I did not have the privilege or otherwise of being incarcerated in the Select Committee, not least because my constituency will be fundamentally affected by the Bill, particularly in the City of London, Mayfair and Bayswater. I have recently had correspondence with Paddington Residents Active Concern on Transport. There is a sense among local residents that they had their day in the sun. They are grateful for the opportunity to petition, and they recognise that that is only part of the process and that they will have further opportunities to make their views clear to the House of Lords. They feel that they were dealt with courteously by the Select Committee and were able to put their points strongly.
There are a number of residual problems. Without getting down to the narrow specifics, they are broadly to do with noise and vibration from trains underneath certain residential areas. We have already debated the 15-m limit, rather than one of 20 or 25 m or a floating slab track underneath, which could be extremely expensive, and the Minister will have had the matter well rehearsed with him. There are also ongoing issues of a highly localised nature, and common sense needs to prevail in relation to changes in traffic.
Obviously, those changes will be a particularly big issue in the centre of London while works are ongoing. Moves to make particular roads one way or to make existing one-way roads two way could have an immense knock-on effect for a locality, particularly around Paddington. Again, I am reassured that the Committee was in listening mode during consideration of the hybrid Bill, and I hope that that continues going forward.
I think that there is an understanding from people in central London; they recognise that it is important to have Crossrail. Equally, a lot of residents understandably feel great worry about the noise and disruption, and obviously there are concerns about the likely costs to the London council tax payer. However, the biggest issue, as I see it, is blight.
At this stage, we need to get on with the project. The worst possible scenario would be either failure of the financing or a very long-winded parliamentary process, such that people who live in the vicinity of the project find that their whole life is blighted.
I know that we will come on to the issue of blight under clause 7 and further schedules that try to ensure that, where there is blight, it is kept to an absolute minimum. This process of scrutiny has been useful, but we need to get on with the work to ensure that the effect on the residential amenity—which is clearly going to be suffered by many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people—is kept to an absolute minimum.

Tom Harris: I had not intended to do anything other than formally move the schedule, but given the comments made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, I shall make a few closing remarks.
First, this is not the first time, and it will not be the last, that I have paid tribute to the work that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members did on the Select Committee. This Committee should indeed be very grateful to them. That leads me to the comments made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. A great many of the concerns felt by private individuals along the Crossrail route were fully expressed in the Select Committee, which is why, of course, it took 21 months of hard work to hear all those concerns.
I appreciate the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that he has been an active Member of the House in representing his constituents’ concerns, specifically with regard to the effect of Crossrail on his constituency. In fact, I believe that he and I have corresponded on one or two of those issues. He can be reassured that the process that we are going through in this Committee, obviously with specific reference to schedule 6, will allow everyone who has concerns about Crossrail to express them—to have, as he put it, their day in the sun. I have no doubt that, with a fair wind in Committee, on the Floor of the House and in another place, the delays that he is worried about will not occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 7

Acquisition of land not subject to the power under section 6(1)

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 7, page 4, line 17, at end insert
‘providing it is in within 50 metres of the outer limits of deviation for the scheduled works’.
The Secretary of State has the power compulsorily to purchase land for Crossrail and its construction on the designated route and on land outside the designated route, but within the limits of deviation. However, the clause goes well beyond that. It gives the Secretary of State powers compulsorily to purchase land
“outside the limits of deviation for the scheduled works and the limits of land to be acquired or used which is required for or in connection with the works authorised”.
That seems to be an extraordinary power.
There is a dedicated route and, understandably, there may need to be deviations from that route for the work to progress, and as the work progresses there will be a need for flexibility, hence the need for the power to acquire land within the limits of deviation. There may be a need to acquire land alongside the route, so as to facilitate the building of the railway or to support the railway when it is operational. All that is understood. To cover both those eventualities, a deviation from the route has been proposed.
That deviation is certainly necessary and it has been specified. However, the clause goes well beyond that, as it allows the compulsory purchase of land
“outside the limits of deviation for the scheduled works”,
which means that the Secretary of State may compulsorily acquire any land that she deems necessary for building Crossrail, wherever it may be.
There are questions that the Minister must answer to the Committee’s satisfaction. For example, why will land necessary only for construction, which is surely the land approximate to the route, fall outside the limits of deviation? Surely, along the designated route, the limits of deviation have been set so as to anticipate all necessary diversions from it. The limits of deviation as specified should be, and are, adequate. The worrying aspect of the clause is that it brings to mind the Martini principle: the Secretary of State can acquire land anywhere and at any time that she deems necessary for the construction of Crossrail. What is the purpose of that?
The Secretary of State is potentially being granted extraordinary powers, and there is a potential cost to the public purse that is wholly disproportionate to that need. My amendment—I hope the Minister will be even more tempted by this one—would allow the extra flexibility that he craves, but also define it. The Secretary of State would have power to acquire land outside the deviation, but limited to 50 m, which is an adequate restriction that would cover all eventualities for construction or land running alongside the route. The amendment would also allow for any circumstances along the confines of the route that anyone could envisage in respect of land acquisition being necessary.
This equally tempting amendment would grant the Secretary of State the exceptional powers that the Minister desires while placing a limit on the flexibility that he requires.

Brian Binley: May I speak in support of the amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend? The process that we went through in the interminable hybrid Bill Committee aimed at ensuring that people’s rights were fully protected and that petitioners who might have been affected by the route as then outlined had every right to bring their concerns to the Committee in a proper way. Many of those people were not the wealthiest in the land—they did not have a great deal of money to get lawyers to fight their case—but they were able to come before our Committee, make their plea and state their case. That was a fine example of parliamentary democracy.
My concern is that the clause opens the whole thing up again. Although I understand the point about the House of Lords, those people are denied the opportunity to appear before the hybrid Bill Committee, which they had with regard to the defined route. I found that Committee process very impressive. If I may pay tribute to a Committee that I was a member of, it considered these matters seriously and, most importantly, compassionately. That is what this process is all about.
There are serious concerns about green land and open areas in London. That became apparent throughout the process. We were careful not to impact too greatly on the available green land because of its scarcity, which made sense to me, and the hybrid Bill Committee clearly supported that view. My concern is that the clause opens up the opportunity yet again—after the end of proceedings in the hybrid Bill Committee—for the project’s undertakers to suggest to the Secretary of State that other routes need to be considered or included, meaning that we will not be able to consider such matters in the depth that we did in the hybrid Bill Committee.
I express the same concerns as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and I hope that the Minister, who is a fair man, will recognise that common rights—the rights of the common people—are important, and that some limiting is important to protect those rights.

Lee Scott: Although Crossrail will not run through my constituency, it will run through neighbouring constituencies, and concerns have been raised with me that if the current project is allowed, there will be the blight to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon referred, and uncertainty in a much wider area than is absolutely necessary for the deviation of Crossrail. I support my hon. Friend and ask the Minister to reconsider and accept our amendment.

Mark Field: I fear that the reference to Martini powers dates my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and me. I am sure that our youthful Whip, our hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, will not remember such things from the 1970s, although they were perhaps a precursor to today’s binge-drinking problem.
I support all that my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon, for Northampton, South and for Ilford, North have said. As I said earlier, the potential for blight within the whole project is sufficient to make unacceptable a compulsory purchase power as untrammelled as the Minister would like. Even our amendment limiting the land to 50 m beyond the outer limits of deviation would have a major effect in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South rightly pointed out. One of the difficulties of maintaining green spaces in London—some of which may be run by local authorities, some of which may be common land—is to prevent the residential population rising up in arms if such land is used even for the purposes of the 50 m limit, let alone for the untrammelled limit that the Minister would have us put in place.
I worry that in central London even 50 m is an incredibly large distance. It potentially brings tens of thousands more people within the scope of Crossrail’s inevitable blight. An untrammelled power would certainly send the wrong signals, not least given the sense from the business and residential communities that this is an important infrastructure project. Even those people who it will directly affect recognise its general national importance, but that good will could be undermined by the Minister’s untrammelled power of potential compulsory purchase. I accept that it is unlikely to be exercised in a great many cases, but the amendment is a sensible suggestion which would pare back the worst aspects of the power.

Susan Kramer: Blight concerns me and my colleagues greatly, and we hope to address it later in the Bill’s consideration. The Minister may feel that he cannot quite commit to a specific limitation of the power now, but by the time the Bill makes its way through the other place, there should be far greater clarity about the potential deviation required, the final route and the outer issues. However, it is crucial that the scope of the affected project area is identified and clarified as early as possible. Although blight is bad, perceived blight is almost worse and the present system offers no potential for compensation.

Tom Harris: The concerns that hon. Members have expressed are understandable. I understand why on the face of it the provisions look like powers for the Secretary of State to implement a Soviet land grab. At the risk of disappointing some of my hon. Friends, that is not the intention of the clause; neither is it a proposal to allow deviation of Crossrail to Stoke-on-Trent or areas far beyond what has been laid down in the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Wimbledon is aware, clause 7 provides additional powers to acquire land outside the Bill limits. However, unlike the principal land acquisition powers in clause 6, which deals with land acquisition within the Bill limits, the power to acquire land under clause 7 can be exercised only through a compulsory purchase order under existing compulsory purchase legislation. Accordingly, the Secretary of State would be required to prepare and publicise a draft compulsory purchase order, so that those affected could object, which might necessitate a hearing or public local inquiry. Furthermore, the acquisition of any land under a compulsory purchase order would attract compensation under the national compensation code. I hope that that goes some way to meeting the concerns of the hon. Member for Northampton, South.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would, in effect, restrict the Secretary of State’s powers to acquire compulsorily land outside the Bill limits, in connection with Crossrail, to within 50 m of the outer limits of deviation for the scheduled works. The extent to which land outside the Bill limits can be acquired compulsorily is well precedented. For example, section 5 of the 1996 Act made similar provision, and of course the powers that the clause will give to the Secretary of State have, in the past, been given to Secretaries of State in previous Governments.
As I have said previously, the design of Crossrail is currently at an outline stage—detailed design work will come later—so flexibility is essential. However, even at this very early stage in the design and construction, it is possible that, without prejudice to the generality, land further than 50 m from the outer limits of deviation for the scheduled works will be required.
Clause 7 gives three specific instances where the power might be used to acquire land in order to help those affected by the project: to mitigate the effect of the Crossrail works on the environment using, for example, the erection of sound barriers; and for the relocation of utility apparatus that merits diversion or replacement as a result of the Crossrail works, and crucially in order to provide land in exchange for common land, certain allotment land or open space acquired for the Crossrail works.
I emphasise again that any such proposal would demonstrably have to be for, or in connection with, Crossrail. It could not be used to acquire land for other purposes. Full protection is provided under the normal compulsory purchase scheme. I assure hon. Members that we do not intend to make general use of the clause; it is a failsafe mechanism, and will be used only with restraint. In that context, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that he can withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened very carefully to the Minister, and I note his comments about precedent, limits and the need for flexibility, as well as the fact that a proposal to go outside the limits could still be subject to compulsory purchase powers and a public inquiry. None the less, the power proposed is extraordinarily wide. I referred to the Martini principle—any time, any place, anywhere. The trouble with the Crossrail Martini is that it will shake and stir people if used outside the limits. Despite what the Minister said, I am not tempted to withdraw the amendment. I would like to press it and test the will of the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: So as not to incur your displeasure, Lady Winterton, I do not wish to rehearse what we have just discussed in the previous amendment. However, subsections (2) and (3) allow some further widening of the power to purchase land outside the conditions set by clause 6(1), so I would like the Minister to clarify under what circumstances he envisages the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker using those provisions. Will he give the Committee reassurance about the power to acquire easements or other rights, as enacted by the clause? Do the Secretary of State or nominated undertaker require those powers in order to access sites, which, in reality, will be a small strip of land, and that, therefore, the acquisition of an easement or a right will be both easier and less costly to arrange? Does the Minister envisage many such easements to be required and does he expect the length of the easements that are acquired to be temporary or permanent? I look forward to his replies to those points, as that will aid the Committee’s understanding of the clause.

Tom Harris: Although I am not able to give an extensive explanation in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I reassure him that the powers to which he refers are, as I said in our earlier debate, intended entirely as a failsafe mechanism. The Government and its agents in Crossrail would not intend to make general use of that power. I hope that he will be satisfied with that answer. If there are any other details with which I can provide him and other members of the Committee with regard specifically to the clause, I will be more than happy to write to them.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the Minister for his response. It would be extremely helpful if he were able to look at the points that I raised about easements, put his response in a letter and make it available to the Committee at a later date.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Extinguishment of private rights of way

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 8, page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (4).

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in clause 8, page 5, line 44, leave out subsections (2)(b) and (4)’ and insert ‘subsection (2)’.

Stephen Hammond: Amendment No. 10 is necessarily a consequential amendment to amendment No. 9, which I am sure that the Minister will wish to accept.
The clause deals with the extinguishment of private rights of way. Subsection (2) extinguishes private rights of way,
“in the case of land acquired after the coming into force of this Act, at the appropriate time.”
It is clearly a sensible power; private rights of way could not and should not take precedence over land acquired for the building and construction of Crossrail, and, therefore, cannot take precedence over the land on which the railway is also operating.
However, subsection (4), which amendment No. 9 seeks to address, appears to act contrary to the purpose of subsection (2)(b). Clause 8(4) states that:
“Subsection (2)(b) does not apply to a right of way that is excepted”,
which effectively counters and reverses subsection (2)(b), rendering the provisions in it null and void, because the Secretary of State can direct that the right of way be excepted from extinguishment. It seems to us that the Secretary of State could effectively acquire land for the purposes of construction, yet allow the private rights of way to persist. That would seem to be potentially injurious to the citizen and disruptive to the building and operation of Crossrail.
If the intent of clause 8(4) is to allow the Secretary of State to regrant rights of way after the end of construction, during which land that may have been required for build but not operational purposes had its private rights of way extinguished, that is understandable. If that is the intent, perhaps the Minister will explain how subsection (4) will achieve it. Otherwise, subsections (2)(b) and (4) appear to be contrary in purpose. Therefore, the amendment would help the Government by removing that contrary aim.

Tom Harris: The purpose of clause 8 is to extinguish most private rights of way over land held by the Secretary of State where that land is required for or in connection with the Crossrail project. That will ensure that the Crossrail works can be carried out safely and effectively. Such provision—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows what I am about to say—is well precedented in previous private Acts for railways and can be found in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
Some private rights of way are protected under the clause. For example, subsection (3) provides for certain rights of way to be excluded from being extinguished. Subsection (4), which amendment No. 9 would delete, further enables the Secretary of State to direct that particular private rights of way are not automatically extinguished under subsection (2) and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would take that right away from the Secretary of State and remove that additional protection. Therefore, I cannot ask the Committee to support it.

Stephen Hammond: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying and following his logic, but will he explain under what circumstances the Secretary of State will want those powers?

Tom Harris: There are circumstances when we will want to protect some rights of way. One example that was considered with regard to the clause is the rights of way that help utility operators to maintain their apparatus. Amendment No. 10 would allow subsection (5) to be altered in association with amendment No. 9, so I cannot support it either.
Although the hon. Member for Wimbledon appears to be concerned about the Secretary of State’s involvement in relation to the extinguishment of private rights of way, that particular role is intended to help to protect such rights of way from extinguishment when reasonably avoidable. Therefore, I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister and, as he rightly said, anticipated his comments about precedent—I sometimes feel a little like the barman who says, “The usual?” when a customer comes in.

Tom Harris: Martinis again.

Stephen Hammond: If that is what the Minister drinks.
I am fully aware that the clause aims to give protection, but I seek the exact circumstances in which private rights of way will be accepted. The Minister has given a perfectly plausible example, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Planning: general

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in clause 10, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
‘(c) the development falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works.’.
The Minister has often said that I might anticipate what he is about to say, but he might equally anticipate what I am about to say. Clauses 10 to 15 deal with the planning issues that affect Crossrail. The general presumption is that planning permission will be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Clause 10 provides for the deemed planning permission to exist under part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Subsection (1) provides that planning permission be granted for the development except where limited by subsection (2). The amendment would put a further restriction on the process. At line 7, it would insert new paragraph (c), which states that
“the development falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works.”
The effect of subsections (1) and (2) is that any land stated for the use of the Crossrail development will be deemed to have planning permission. Why should it be any land? The amendment would impose a reasonable restriction on the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker.
As I have said before, there is a deemed route and a schedule of works. There are agreed limitations of deviation to that route. As with previous amendments, I contend that the limits of deviation are a fair restriction on those powers. By adding that the development must fall within those limits of deviation, the amendment would have the effect of deeming planning permission for developments on the deemed route and land outside the route that is within the deemed limits of deviation, but not on land beyond that. In my opinion, that is fair.
As the Minister will remember, we have gone through the arguments as to why there ought to be some restriction on the powers, while still giving flexibility. I think that the amendment satisfies both those tests. I trust that he will find it reasonable and fair.

Tom Harris: I stand reluctantly to disappoint the hon. Gentleman once again. The amendment would require separate planning permission to be sought for any works authorised by the Bill that were not scheduled works and which fell outside the limits of deviation. In practice, that would affect a wide category of works—for example, alterations to existing stations, electrification and signalling works on the existing network, and works to mitigate settlement impacts. All those things often take place outside the limits of deviation of works.
Requiring separate planning permission to be sought for such works would undermine the very purpose of the Bill, which is to obtain deemed planning permission for the works reasonably required to enable Crossrail to be built, where there has been appropriate environmental assessment. The amendment would expose the project to the risk of severe delays as local authorities considered applications for such works under the 1990 Act regime. That would include the possibility of public inquiries. Works other than scheduled works are, like the scheduled works themselves, subject to the detailed consent regime set out in schedule 7. The Government believe that that provides for the appropriate scrutiny.

Mark Field: I am very curious about this issue. Can the Minister give examples of any stations that are outside the limits of deviation? Given the importance of stations within a railway project, I cannot foresee any of the stations being outside the limits of deviation. That puts a coach and horses through his argument on the works in the vicinity of stations themselves.

Tom Harris: No doubt inspiration will descend upon me shortly, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman—for example, on the issue of signalling works. Crossrail will result in a large step change in the number of through trains going through the capital city. That will have a knock-on effect on capacity demands elsewhere on the network. Therefore, if we are to accommodate the extra people travelling through the centre of the city, works might be needed at stations not associated with Crossrail.
We anticipate significant increases in passenger numbers throughout London. If we have to make changes to signalling, tracks or stations that do not lie directly within the Crossrail line, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we can carry out those improvements without imposing undue delay on the construction of Crossrail.
The Government believe that the Bill provides for the appropriate scrutiny of detailed matters, given the deemed planning permission that will have been given to these works.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.